Reason Prostituted

Abiogenesis and the atheist's faith

2008-07-26T14:53:00.000-07:00

Taken from this forum.

Everyone has some faith in an ultimate something that cannot be substantiated solely by physical evidence.

Atheists have faith in naturalism alone - their faith is nakedly exposed in topics such as the origin of life or, as they term it, abiogeneis. Abiogenesis is the idea that life originated from non-living matter in the sense that it arose naturalistically. The naturalistic (and therefore “scientific”) concept is that life ("bio") must have originated ("genesis") without ("a-") any outside help.
Life, ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE anywhere in the universe, ultimately either arose naturally or supernaturally. So, ultimately, there are really only two alternatives.

With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of God, the Flying Spagettii Monster (FSM), is that we know what the raw chemicals are capable of doing (or NOT doing, in this case) and we know that the overall reactions produce results that go in the wrong direction (away from life). All the origin of life experiments are failures at providing anything that actually works... but since the atheists "knows" that the materialistic universe is all that exists, he invokes his own mantra about unknown conditions and processes and convinces others that THIS is the only logical and scientific response in spite of the resulting facts.

To put it bluntly, naturalistic scientists do not really have a clue how life arose. They have a bunch of "just so" stories and THAT is ALL! Their experiments are absolute dead ends. But, hopefully, "someday" (they believe) scientists may eventually find those "unknown processes" which will allow matter to self-organize into the bio-chemical equivalent of a von Neumann machine (named for mathematician and founder of cybernetics, John von Neumann (1903-1957).

The “simple” cell remains a staggering example of the stupendous complexity required for even the simplest bio-chemical “von Neumann” self-repairing, self-reproducing, metabolizing machine to exist. And in an environment where malfunctions equal death, is it really probable that such “mechanisms” could evolve by natural processes? Not likely. In fact, it is highly unlikely that many of the sub-cellular molecular machines found within a single cell could evolve by natural processes.

Theists believe that the God that exists has revealed himself. Is there faith involved? Absolutely! The question isn’t whether or not faith is involved (we ALL have faith in things we can’t demonstrate to be true empirically) but whether or not that faith is reasonable. The problem then becomes defining what is reasonable. Evidence, it seems, is not regarded as evidence until it is first PERCIEVED to actually be evidence. It was not too long ago when evidence that stones were falling from the sky was denounced as impossible because everyone just “knew” that stones could not fall from the sky. Today we call these stones meteorites. The evidence was there but the belief paradigm at that time would not accept it. In other words, we all filter out what the evidence really is based on our world-view or basic belief paradigm. We are all prejudiced. So, which bias is the best bias to be biased with? I believe the theistic bias is a very good bias...

Keep reading.

Dawkins and the Jews

2008-03-20T10:05:00.000-07:00

These are old news, but still interesting:

Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy

(IsraelNN.com) Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews “more or less monopolize American foreign policy.” Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are “fantastically successful” in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy.

A number of Jewish leaders responded immediately, with ADL head Abe Foxman calling Dawkin’s remarks “classic anti-Semitism.” Malcom Hoenlein, a senior official in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, was quoted by Yediot Acharonot as saying the statements represented “the poisoning of the elite.” Even top scientists can “demonstrate ignorance and fall victim to misinformation,” said Hoenlein, adding “This impact spreads within the intellectual community, and then trickles down to the general populace.”

I agree with Dawkins about the Jews.

But look at Dawkins's attitude.

What amazes me is not Dawkins's authoritarianism, it's his candid way to express it. Why should the majority of population -who believes in God- accept without opposition the imposition of an atheistic agenda? No wonder people fight against the imposition of the teaching of neo-darwinism in schools.

It's clear Dawkins doesn't believe in Democracy.

Atheists and Death

2008-03-19T15:16:00.000-07:00

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyound dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

Bertrand Russell.

Currently I feel that belief in God is better for mental health than atheism. It's easy to see why atheism can lead to cynicism and lack of hope.

Hoping that there is an ultimate purpose is perfectly rational, even if there is no evidence, because being optimistic is more productive than being pessimistic and hope is better than hopelessness.

See this article:

Atheism and Death: Why the atheist must face death with despair

Many religions, a common ground

2008-02-28T13:26:00.000-08:00

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Stephen Roberts

The presupposition behind these phrase seems to be that any concept of God is equally arbitrary, and any believer of whatever religion base her beliefs on pure whim or blindly follows any religious tradition she received in her upbringing.

If this believer rejects other religious traditions for being incompatible with her own, she rejects these traditions because she thinks they are human-based, or devil-based: they don't originate from her god.

In order to become a full atheist she only has to realize that her beliefs are equally arbitrary to the ones she criticizes.

But these presuppositions are wrong. Not every religion sees other religious traditions as purely arbitrary. See Catholicism for example: it currently teaches that there is value in other religious traditions. There is even a line of apologetics that sees the different religions as evidence that human beings have a natural thirst for spiritual things, even when their particular beliefs may be misguided at times. Somehow people have a perception of God that is beyond doctrine.

Many religious persons these days subscribe to different forms of monotheism. It's true that some of these monotheisms are mutually exclusive in some of their beliefs; but these doesn't imply that they don't have a core of common religious experience they express according to their particular religious idiosyncrasies, that religions don't try to reach an spiritual dimension that is truly there.

Ten reasons why God is different than Santa Claus

2008-02-19T09:09:00.000-08:00

Santa is an intentional fiction. God is seriously believed to exist.

Santa's existence is irrelevant for the universe's existence, but if God exists she is the foundation of all existence.

Santa is a contingent being, he could or not exist. If God exists, she is necessary, she could not not exist.

Santa's existence is falsifiable. God's existence is not.

God's existence is an issue of serious reflection for unbelievers. Santa's is not.

Many famous people of high intellectual caliber believe in God. There's no serious intellectual known for her belief in Santa.

There are different kind of arguments that seriously pretend to support the case for God's existence. No such arguments exist for Santa.

God's invisible and inmaterial. Santa is not.

Belief in God is a basic tenet of many religious organizations. There is no organization known to defend belief in Santa.

There is no philosophical basis for belief in Santa, but there is for God.

Essential Theism

2008-02-11T14:55:00.000-08:00

The essence of theism consists in trusting that there is an ultimate cosmic purpose in which everyone of us takes part.

In the end, everything will work for good, somehow.

Theism is an attitude of wholesome confidence towards life.

The Irrational Atheist

2008-02-07T15:08:00.000-08:00

This is good news.

The book "The Irrational Atheist" is now available online for free.

Check this link:

The Irrational Atheist

“In The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day plays the card that the atheists consider their trump—reason—against them in a devastating and highly entertaining manner. With clarity and wit, he presents a wealth of evidence to demolish the arguments put forward by the leading ‘brights’ of the day.”
—Chad Elder, Fraters Libertas

God is important for atheists

2008-02-07T09:56:00.000-08:00

One of the connotations of the analogy of God with Santa Claus and other fictional characters is that God is irrelevant, her existence easily dismissible, and were it not for a bunch of lunatics we call theists, this would be a non issue. In fact, it is a non issue, theists’s insistence notwithstanding.

But the curious thing is that there are those who insist that belief in God is in the same category with belief in Santa, and at the same time can’t stop thinking, talking and writing about God related issues.

That behavior seems contradictory to me. Even though atheists may deny it with words, with their behavior they are admitting that they care about God’s existence, and possibly even more than those theists that take God’s existence for granted.

This atheist behavior cries for an explanation.

Going Theist

2008-02-01T18:55:00.000-08:00

These days I've been wondering what to do with the proposition that God exists, or, conversely, with opposite one: that God does not exist.

What I believe?

I've been playing an agnostic position, but now I doubt an agnostic position is psychologically feasible. I now tend to think it's not.

If I am honest with myself, I have to admit that the affirmation that God does not exist doesn't ring true to me. In other words: the existence of God is not so easily dismissible for me as the existence of Santa Claus.

So the assertion that God exists seems more believable to me than its opposite.

Am I a theist?

I think so.

Am I a Christian?

No.

But more than believing, I feel. I feel the wonder of being alive in this world and I connect this feeling with God. And no amount of naturalistic explanation has been able to eliminate this wonder.

These days I've reading critiques of naturalistic ideology in official science. I now doubt neo-Darwinism and anti-miracle skepticism.

I admit that my idea of God is incomplete.

God is mystery for me. If we could explain God, it wouldn't be God anymore.

No evidence for God?

2008-01-28T08:42:00.000-08:00

There's no evidence for God's existence.

This is a popular claim of atheists.

But no matter how you try to argue for evidence for God or supernaturalism, they don't accept it and keep claiming there is no evidence.

What to do?

Put them to provide evidence for their atheistic and naturalistic worldview.

See these articles:

How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist.

Presumption of Atheism and the ‘Insufficient Evidence’ Objection to Belief in God.

The Santa Claus Argument

2008-01-23T09:34:00.000-08:00

"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence".

"But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist".

"I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?”

Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character.

But what is the basis of this idea?

It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake.

Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a human concept (So human concepts cannot be true?), or that God does not exist because the concept of God can be traced to primitive pre-scientific ideas (this is a genetic fallacy), or that God does not exists because belief in God is based on wishful thinking (this is ad hominem).

So it seems that this "argument" doesn't amount to much, but its purpose is, given the lack of arguments, to mock the theist or hurt her feelings. But atheists would say that's not their intention, or that the theist is overly sensitive.

But this comparison of God with Santa suggests that the theist has childish beliefs, is not mature for her age or somehow is not in full possession of her mental abilities.

Some atheists would agree that theism is a kind of mental disorder, but would deny that their intention is to hurt. Others will be bold and confess that their intention is to awaken the rationality in the believer through a kind of shock treatment.

But this claim that theism is a kind of mental disorder, if taken seriously, should bear a heavy burden of the proof, because it needs to be explained how there is more people sick than sane, at all times.

The Santa Claus Argument reflects the atheist belief that were it not for social conditioning we would all be atheists, that somehow being an atheist is normal and being religious is anomalous, and they say this against all evidence. Faith is needed to believe this claim. Human beings don't live in isolation from each other, to abstract from social conditioning is not realistic.

The Santa Claus argument can also be used as a token of recognition between atheists. Mocking the theists is also a pseudo-comical relief for the tension produced by living in a world full of believers. An unsuccessful attempt for humor, because it reveals more bitterness and cynicism than humor. It's so repetitive that easily becomes boring.

The same can be said of the latest version of the Santa Claus argument: The Spaghetti Flying Monster. But atheists think it's funny.

See also:

Russell's Teapot: Does it Hold Water?

Defining Atheism

2008-01-18T08:35:00.000-08:00

There is no agreement about the definition of atheism, not even in those who call themselves atheists.

Some authors say that atheism is denial of God. That is the most popular definition among non-atheists, and is often contrasted to agnosticism.

Others say that atheism is lack of belief in God, and that this lack of belief doesn't necessarily imply denial of the existence of God. This is the definition that is most used by internet atheists, and is used to effectively avoid the burden of the proof. These atheists say they don't have to prove the non existence of God. Those who claim that God exists are the ones obliged to prove that God exists, no the other way around. They elevate this to a general epistemological principle.

This definition of atheism as a lack of belief allows the atheist to appear neutral and ingenuous about the issue of God, without the need to call themselves "agnostics", label that is despised by atheists for being too weak.

In order to distinguish the definition of atheism as a lack of belief from atheism as as denial of God, some authors distinguish strong atheism from weak atheism. Strong atheism is outright denial of the existence of God, and weak atheism is merely lack of belief in God.

The adjective "weak" may be misleading. Weak atheism is thought to be a stronger epistemological position, technically unobjectable.

It is believed that the broad definition of atheism is not new, but is derived directly from its Greek etymology. The word "atheist" is derived from "atheos" which is directly translated as "no god" or "without god". Internet atheists say this means "without belief in god", although the Greek word doesn't include the word "belief".

Guthrie denounces this definition of atheism as historical revisionism. This definition of atheism would be a novel one, and its popularity among self-called atheists is due to internet diffusion.

But George Smith proves in this article that the definition of atheism as a lack of belief is not a new one, and was used by atheists authors even before the term agnosticism was coined.

Nevertheless, I suspect there is no big difference between the claim that God does not exist and the claim of "lack of belief" by a particular person, and this is because it's hard to remain neutral in the face of a sensitive and widely known topic like this one. This is what Matt Slick argues in this and this article, and I think he is correct. Therefore, weak atheism is reducible to strong atheism. Weak atheism is just a rhetorical device used to avoid the burden of the proof.

To complicate things even more, there's the issue of the definition of God: there are various definitions available, but most atheists use the definition of God of classical theism. It is at this definition that they direct their "lack of belief" and usually ignore other definitions or disdain them. Others refuse to give their definition of God. In this too they place the burden of proof in the believer, waiting for a particular believer to give his definition of God before they can smash it. This is the height of ideological escapism, for it makes atheism theoretically meaningless.

God as Intelligence and Ultimate Foundation

2008-01-09T14:13:00.000-08:00

The traditional arguments for the existence of God, even when they don't achieve their purpose, at least help us to discern a concept of Her.

Such is the case of the teleological argument, also known as argument from design, that, when put together with the cosmological argument, gives us an idea of what we should understand when we are talking about God.

The teleological argument can be understood as an analogy between the things the human being create and the things that exist in nature. Intelligence is the ability that allows the capacity of creation for the human being. The teleological argument says that there should be something analogous to the human intelligence that has created the things that exists in nature.

The cosmological argument is based in the idea that everything has a cause, reason of being or explanation, even when we don't know it. Based in this principle, we reached the conclusion that everything that exists must have an ultimate explanation, which is the foundation of reality.

If we identify this ultimate explanation of the cosmological argument with the creative intelligence of the teleological argument, we reach the conclusion that the ultimate foundation of reality is at least rational. This is God: the unifying principle of reality.

But there is the danger of making a too simplistic analogy. If there must be something analogous to the intelligence of the human being that has created everything that exists, we can't conclude it must be too similar to the human being. On the contrary, in virtue of being God the ultimate foundation of reality, there must be a chasm between the Being of God, which is the source of all existence, and the human being. That chasm cannot be measured.

That is why Paul Tillich was right when he said that we can't even say that God is a person, but being the source of all existence, and in particular, the existence of the human person, God can't be less than a person. God can't be less than rational.

Pantheism and Atheism

2008-01-02T13:44:00.000-08:00

It is not necessary to think about the Supreme Being as a personal god. Pantheism claims the Universe is God, that God is all that exists.

This does not mean the God of theism is equivalent to the Universe. That would be absurd because Theism clearly distinguish the Creator from Creation.

Pantheistic conceptions are found everywhere in oriental religions.

In occidental tradition, Baruch Spinoza was the philosopher who stood out in defense of Pantheism. Spinoza’s pantheism was a monism of one only substance and many attributes. He believed in some kind of pre-designer Soul who committed suicide in the act of creation of matter.

Some people believe the Universe is some kind of living being.

But the pantheism that interests me, and that can also be interesting to atheists is Naturalistic Pantheism, the one that some call Scientific Pantheism. (I considered this last term an oxymoron).

Naturalistic Pantheism is based in the feeling of awe and amazement that some people feel when contemplating nature:

When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us. [1]

There are even authors famous for their atheism or agnosticism that share this feeling of awe for Nature.

Carl Sagan said:

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge. [2]

Also noteworthy are the comments of the radical anti-theist Richard Dawkins:

"I don't think they come much more anti-religious than I do," claims Richard Dawkins. "And yet there are objects and occasions which invoke in me a profound sense of the sacred." He goes on to describe being moved to tears in the presence of the great fossils of palaeo-anthropology in Kenya or of "the strata of geological time laid out before you" at the Grand Canyon.

"The human mind is big enough, and imaginative enough, to be poetically moved by the whole sweep of geological ages represented by the rocks that you are standing among. That's why you feel awe. That's why you feel as though you are undergoing a religious experience."

Dawkins' feeling of 'awe' is echoed by Simon Blackburn. "Despite being an atheist, I find a lot of things arouse a sense of the sacred in me. Works of art or music, sublime grand spectacles in nature, the starry heavens above and the moral law within, the oldest human skulls in Kenya or the newest human baby in a maternity ward can all be fitting objects of different kinds of awe and reverence." [3]

Some people don’t understand pantheism, and discard it lightly, like Schopenhauer did, because they believe it’s superfluous to identify Nature with God. Nevertheless, pantheists consider that their affirmation that the Universe is divine is not superfluous, since de attribute of being divine is clear and distinctive.

Others teach that Pantheism and atheism are compatible based on a definition of atheism as the denial of theism. I consider this definition of atheism as the expression of cultural provincialism that sees religion from the traditional view of Western Christianity, and doesn’t take into account other wider conceptions of spirituality.

I am of the opinion that there are atheists that should stop identifying themselves as such, and should start pronouncing in favor of Pantheism.

See also:

Notes

[1] Scientific Pantheism:
Reverence of Nature and Cosmos.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Cited in Shock and Awe.

Process Theology and Open Theism

2008-01-02T10:08:00.000-08:00

The concept of God profiled in the ontological argument of Saint Anselm is that of a distant and impassible God: incapable of experimenting surprise, incapable of feeling any kind of emotion she can’t risk anything.

Pascal was right in his rejections of this cold philosophical god, choosing instead a more biblical faith.

This philosophical theism is not compatible with practical theism that is lived in Christian religion.

The simple act of prayer seeks to influence God, but trying to influence God is pointless when she is conceived as the Absolute.

It’s no wonder many believers of orthodox piety are trying to make a reformulation of their faith in order to make it more open and existential than metaphysical.

A relational approach to theology drives us to reject the concept of a distant and cold god, locked in his infinitude.

Process Theology

Whitehead and Harshorne were the ones to provide a philosophical frame for a more biblical and practical theism. (Whitehead was co-author with Bertrand Russell of the book Principia Mathematica).

According to these authors, God is not transcending time, as it is understood in classical theism. At least since creation, she is part of the universal becoming. And since future is not determined, she lacks complete knowledge of what is going to happen. God may have knowledge of different possible outcomes, but she can’t be sure of which one of them is going to actualize.

This would not diminish at all the concept of supreme divine knowledge, since it is not reasonable to expect from God a knowledge that is unavailable by principle.

Open Theism

A similar approach, but less philosophical is that of Open Theism, that has been accepted by evangelical authors.

In this conception, God doesn’t have an intrinsic limitation in his inability to know the future, but she has limited her own power in order to have a better relationship with human beings.

Open Theism answer paradoxes of the classical theism as the problem of evil and the coexistence of free will with omniscience. Its principle benefit is that it makes sense of prayer.

Some critics of Process Theology and Open Theism denounce that this conceptions steal glory from God. But I believe that choosing between more humane forms of theism and classical theism is a subject of personal value judgments.

Some people give more value to power as a supreme attribute, and some other people give more value to a more humane and relational approach.

A moving example of the last is the article A Friend's Love: Why Process Theology Matters.

From an evangelical and open theism point of view is remarkable the book Disappointment with God by Philip Yancey. (I recommend this Calvinistic critique of the open theism of Yancey).

Read also:

Thinking about the Supreme Being

2007-12-29T10:56:00.000-08:00

Saint Anselm made his contribution to the philosophical speculation of the concept of God with his ontological argument.

He asked us to think in God as the Supreme Being: the most powerful and great being we could possibly imagine.

We will have to reach a point when we have to think about this being as really existing, otherwise we weren’t thinking about the Supreme Being.

And thus we reach the conclusion that the Supreme Being really exists.

In other words: the existence of the Supreme Being is necessary by definition: she cannot not exist.

If the existence of the Supreme Being is necessary, and we admit the possibility of her existence, we should also admit that she really exists.

The ontological argument also teaches us something about the nature of God.

The Supreme Being, in order to be really supreme, must have maxi-properties.

She should be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, infinite and perfect.

Here enters the demolition atheist project, that pursuits to establish that the concept of the Supreme Being is self-contradictory:

Can God create a stone so heavy that even she cannot lift? Any answer we give to this question would indicate that she is not all powerful.
There is evil in the world, and God cannot avoid it or she doesn’t want to. Thus she is not omnipotent or she is not good.
If God is omniscient then there is no free will, and if we weren’t created with free will, she is not good.
Moreover: How can a Perfect Being create an imperfect world?

If the concept of the Supreme Being is contradictory, logic tells us it’s impossible. And if it’s impossible, she cannot exist.

Atheism is then justified.

Objections

There’s an obvious objection: if thinking about the Supreme Being leads us to logical contradictions, then we weren’t really thinking about the Supreme Being. Our concept of the Supreme Being has to be reformulated. Once we accomplish this reformulation, the existence of the Supreme Being should be considered necessary, and we’ll reach to the conclusion that the Supreme Being really exists.

If an atheists desires to establish with pure logic her atheism, she must not only refute one particular ontological argument, she should demonstrate that a successful reformulation of the ontological argument is impossible.

It is also necessary to analyze the assumptions that lead us to attribute to the Supreme Being her maxi-properties.

If we think about it, identification of Supremacy with Higher Power is not itself obvious, and it can change depending of different cultural approaches.

For anarchists, power is a source of corruption and alienation. And power in maximum grade personified in God directs to maximum corruption. That is why Bakunin said that if God indeed existed, she should be abolished.

Christian tradition itself provides us with reasons to doubt such identification through the divine figure of Christ. What has inspired Christians when they contemplate the Suffering Christ is not his power, but his voluntary weakness.

Similar observations can be made about the qualities of omniscience and omnipresence.

A humanist approach to theology will lead us to doubt the necessity of traditional maxi-properties for the Supreme Being. We can even doubt that the existence of the Supreme Being should be necessary.

The Supremacy concept can be considered a subjective valuation, and therefore not apt to construe an ontological argument.

That doesn’t imply that some particular subjective conception of the Supreme might not be true.

PD.

There’s this book in Spanish that uses paraconsistent logic in order to give a solution to the problem of contradictory attributes of the god of classical theism.

As a way of introduction

2007-10-12T14:55:00.000-07:00

There is no basis in reason for atheists beliefs. Atheist critique of religion is based more in anti-religious passion than in serene reflection.

Atheism as an intimate belief in the non existence of God is respectable, but most of the atheists that express pride of calling themselves with that term don’t stay there, but proceed to a systematic effort of defamation of religion worthy of better cause.

More important than our metaphysical beliefs is to relate to each other and develop together as human beings. We can find fanaticism in all kind of religious and philosophical positions, even on the atheist side. This is what urges to fight to. I make a critique of atheism because I feel that so many energies are directed in the wrong direction. Given the irrational denunciations of atheists, it is necessary to find a balance.

Most critiques directed to atheism begin with religious and confessional positions that atheists reject immediately. My critique of atheism is not of that kind, but begins with presuppositions that can be accepted by both parts of the debate.